The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order raised on June 5, 2000 by the hon. opposition House leader concerning Bill C-201, formerly known as an act to amend the Competition Act (protection of those who purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers who compete with them at retail) in the name of the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, which is presently on the order of precedence.

At the outset, I would like to thank the opposition House leader, the leader of the government in the House of Commons and the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for their contributions in this matter.

Standing Order 86(1) allows a private member's bill considered in a previous session to be reinstated at the same stage at which it stood at the time of prorogation. At the time of prorogation the bill in question, previously Bill C-235, had been reported from the Standing Committee on Industry with amendments that deleted the title and all the clauses of the bill and it was set down for consideration at report stage.

When the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge introduced his bill on October 14, 1999, pursuant to Standing Order 86(1), it was again placed on the order of precedence at the report stage with its title and clauses deleted.

On a number of occasions during the present session, the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has given notice that he could not be present in the House to go forward with his bill.

Most of the time it was possible to arrange an exchange of positions on the order of precedence with another member. However, on two occasions, on February 15 and on June 2, the House was informed that it had not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions on the order of precedence for Private Members' Business Hour for the following sitting day.

Consequently, Private Members' Business Hour had to be cancelled and the hon. member's bill was dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence.

On June 5 the opposition House leader expressed concern about the number of times exchanges had been arranged for Bill C-201, and the fact that when no exchange of items on the order of precedence was possible, Private Members' Business could not take place.

On June 7 the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge responded to the point of order raised by the opposition House leader, and the Speaker undertook to return to the House with a ruling, which I am now providing.

Bill C-201 is once again working its way up the order of precedence, while the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge seeks a way to restore, through amendments, the effect of Bill C-201. However, the hon. member will agree that the situation is unfair to other hon. members who have items in the list outside the order of precedence that they consider of equal importance but which are unable to advance.

Standing Order 94(1)(a) allows the Speaker to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members' Business and, with that in mind, the Chair has decided to allow the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge a further 48 hours to place on the notice paper motions in amendment to restore the title and clauses.

At the expiration of the 48 hours, if no motions in amendment are placed on notice, I hereby instruct the clerk to remove Bill C-201 from the order of precedence, the order for concurrence at report stage to be discharged and the bill withdrawn.

As I stated the other day, I would encourage the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider this specific issue and to provide the House with some guidance as to how it should proceed in the future with similar cases

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to thank all hon. members for their patience in awaiting this decision.

Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual consultations with House leaders, and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, when the House adjourns this day, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 18, 2000, provided that the provisions of Standing Order 28(4) shall apply as if the House had been adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28(2).

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration requesting authorization to travel in the fall of 2000 to hear from Canadians on Bill C-32, Canada's most important new immigration bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee considered the Canadian book industry and reports its findings and recommendations.

The book publishing industry is important to Canada. We therefore hope our recommendations can help reinforce that industry.

I thank the members of all parties, the witnesses and all those who submitted briefs, as well as the committee staff for their support.

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to its order of reference dated Tuesday, November 30, 1999, the committee has considered the subject matter of Bill C-224, an act to establish, by the beginning of the 21st century, an exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization to recognize crimes against humanity, as defined by the United Nations, that have been perpetrated during the 20th century, and has agreed to report its findings and recommendations.

A number of the witnesses expressed appreciation of Bill C-224, seeing it as an excellent starting point.

To that end, the committee offers some directions with the potential of providing respectful follow-up to the pursuit of the objectives set out in this bill, which are research, education and honouring the memory of the victims of genocide and crimes against humanity.

The committee expressed its thanks to the hon. member for Brampton Centre for bringing this matter to its attention.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance entitled “Challenge of Change: A Study of Cost Recovery”.

The finance committee has been very much focused on getting government right. Whether it be the structure of the tax system or the regulation of the financial institutions, the committee has sought to ensure that government initiatives are delivered efficiently and provide a real net worth to Canadians.

Public policy has an economy wide impact on our productivity and our standard of living. However, to be good, policy must not only be right, it must be properly implemented. This is the message the committee received during its hearings on the federal government's user charge and cost recovery policy.

As chair, I would like to thank the members of the committee for their work and commitment to this study, a commitment evidenced by their unanimous support for its recommendations. I would also like to thank the many witnesses who took the time to prepare briefs and appear before the committee. A very special thanks to the clerk, the researchers and the entire committee staff for their excellent work.

Finally, I would like to note that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee is requesting a comprehensive government response to this report.

Joe McGuireLiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food entitled “Making the Farm Income Safety Net Stronger and More Responsive to Farmers' Needs”, which was tabled in the House of Commons on February 22, 2000.

Derek LeeLiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 37th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding improved financial reporting to parliament project. The report was prepared by the subcommittee on improved financial reporting to parliament.

This is a subject of continuing challenge for colleagues in the House. I would like to commend the chair, the hon. member for Mississauga South, the subcommittee's hardworking members and the staff of that subcommittee for their hard work in ensuring their report would be a unanimous one and ready for presentation to the House within a short timeframe.

I would also like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee is requesting a comprehensive government response.

Allan RockLiberalfor Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-40, an act to establish a body that provides administrative services to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada, to amend the Federal Court Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Judges Act, and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

This bill proposes to fund the equivalent of one post-secondary degree for children and spouses of federal enforcement officials who have died as a result of injuries received or illness contracted in the discharge of their duties.

The definition of a federal enforcement official in my bill is slightly different from the current definition of peace officer contained in federal legislation. This bill will apply to certain employees of Correctional Service Canada, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, RCMP officers, and members of the Canadian armed forces.

Between 1989 and 1999 a total of 23 federal police enforcement officials were killed in the line of duty. During that same time, 22 members of the Canadian armed forces serving in peacekeeping missions abroad also lost their lives while serving our country.

Given that federal enforcement officials risk their lives to protect Canadians—

Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member for Cambridge that this is not a second reading speech. It is a succinct explanation of the bill, and I know he will want to draw his remarks to a very speedy conclusion.

The first petition is signed by people from Saint-Eustache, Montreal, Brossard, Chambly and Saint-Jean. The second one is signed by people from Campbell's Bay, Gatineau, Hull and Aylmer, and the third by people from Fleurimont, Deauville, Bromptonville and Napierville. These petitioners are all protesting excessively high gas prices.

They state as follows: “Given the soaring price of gasoline at the pump, the petitioners are calling on parliament to pass a resolution to stop world petroleum cartels in order to bring down overly high gasoline prices”.

The first is from some 37 constituents from Dawson Creek, British Columbia in the riding of Prince George—Peace River calling upon the House of Commons to fulfil the promise it made in 1989 to end child poverty by the year 2000. I do not think it will make it.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present a petition signed by 47 constituents from Prince George in my beautiful riding calling upon the House of Commons to enact legislation against causing the death of the unborn at any stage of prenatal life.